New exciting proposal! NumisThought: The NumisForums Journal - what do you think?

[Severus Alexander]

Yesterday, @Qcumbor has a neat suggestion:

Featured Threads were fun, but I think we can do one better!  Q's thread had plenty of good ideas, and some concerns were raised too.  This is my attempt to put all that together and add to it to create something unique to NumisForums that goes far beyond what we had available at CT.  In fact, it could provide a really valuable service to the numismatic community.  No, really.... hear me out!  I do think I've had a bit of a brainwave here... just hoping it's not a brainfart instead! 😄

NumisThought: The NumisForums Journal

As you all know, there is some amazing research work posted here and in other numismatic forums, work that is often hard to find... you just have to stumble upon it through the luck of google.  On CT, I often yearned for this stuff to be collected together and indexed.  @Curtisimo once suggested something along those lines, but for whatever reason it didn't take off.  I thought that was a shame!

Well... let's do it, I say, and do it right!

Here's the basic idea: research-based posts would (with the author's permission) be considered for inclusion in our forum journal NumisThought (? name TBD), which would be published as a separate top level category (same as Numis Forum News and Numis Forums right now).  There would be a general editor and an editorial board, all volunteer of course.  The editorial board, which would include experienced numismatists, academics, and independent scholars (I doubt we'd have a shortage of volunteers) would decide if a post deserved inclusion. 

Using @John Conduitt's educational tag idea, author requests, and member suggestions, we could identify research-based posts that deserve to be included.  There would be at least three types, I imagine, 1) review-type articles summarizing information that's already out there, 2) new idea type articles with original research, and 3) book reviews.  An editor would be assigned to the piece, correspondence with the author would ensue, and the original post would be revised in the light of the ongoing discussion in the post comments plus editorial feedback. The revised article would then be re-posted in the dedicated journal space, with the original forum post & comments linked ("for the original NumisForums post on this topic and ongoing discussion, please see here"), resolving @DonnaML's legit worry about the OP disappearing.  (Probably at least 3 board members should sign off on it before publication.)

With an editorial board of great folks holding decision-making power here, the degree of arbitrariness in what gets included would be kept to a minimum.  As for any journal, they could seek expert advice where appropriate.  We have lots of already-published experts to consult here already, like @curtislclay, @Phil Davis, @Valentinian and others, as well as independent scholars with amazing knowledge, like @Roerbakmix, @seth77, @Nap, @Roman Collector, @Heliodromus, @David Atherton, etc. etc., plus with our own journal we'd certainly gather more.  Time commitment would be very flexible so the list would build pretty easily.

Ways this would be a normal journal

• Articles/posts would have to be well researched, well written, and well cited.  The editors can help clean up the text if necessary.
• Like any open access journal, each post/article would get a volume and issue number plus a publication date, for citation purposes.  Academics and others would get credit for their research.  On occasion, at the editors' discretion, posts/articles could even be sent out for peer-review.  (Perhaps it would eventually be recognized by an official body as an open-access journal at some point in its development.)
• Editorial board members would be officially listed, and so also get verifiable credit for their work.  CV/resumé-appropriate information!
• Articles and topics would be indexed.  There would be a pinned, categorized list of all of them at the top of the journal subforum.

Ways this would NOT be a normal journal

• No academic gatekeeping.  You don't have to be a professor to publish your excellent research here!
• No stuffy style or citation format requirements!  Informal style is totally fine, as long as the post/article is well-written.  Links are great.  Jokes and entertaining stories are all good.  Formal academic style is fine too!  Every piece would have its origin in the regular forum, so there will be lots of variety and that's just as it should be.  What matters is the value of the content and its being presented in digestible form.  Content-wise, if an article is good and useful, it will get cited a lot; others will be cited less.  That's how it's supposed to work!  Quality is ultimately judged by the community.
• No length requirements either.  Everything from small snippets to long reviews would be fair game!  Some publications can simply briefly detail a new coin type.  With a good index, it will be easy to find.
• New relevant research could be added to the article at any time, as an addendum.  (No editing the original version, of course, to keep citations valid.)  Perhaps something new would arise in the forum discussion.  The article would be linked to the original forum post and vice versa.  Some articles may even prove to be totally off-base, e.g. a new coin type isn't really because the coin is a fake, say.  Well, we curb the misinformation by adding that correction to the article and flagging it at the top.
• Sometimes – often! – an author just wants to get an idea out there, never mind all the usual rigamarole involved with normal academic publication.  This would be the perfect venue.
• Low risk of wasted time on file drawer papers: write your OP and if it seems to be a candidate to get into the journal in some form, all well and good.  But the post lasts forever in the normal forum either way!  And the time to publication can be highly variable, no problem... some will get it in right away, others may want to take a few months on revisions.

What level of quality would be required for publication?

Obviously the board try to will start with an agreed-upon general standard of quality required (maybe using some already-existing posts here and elsewhere for reference?), but that standard may evolve as the journal progresses.  The standard would certainly start at a level rather higher than the lowest quality posts we sometimes saw in Featured Threads at CT, however.

OK... but what about that general editor?

This is obviously the position that would have the greatest time commitment.  But as for authors and editorial board, the person taking it on would be able to list the position on their CV/resumé so it would not be totally thankless.  And if/when the journal grows, credit & the position's value would increase proportionally along with that increased time commitment.

Since I am largely off work at the moment due to my cancer, I'm willing to serve as the inaugural editor-pro-tem if necessary, to get things set up and running smoothly.  I would really enjoy it.  Plus since I can play the cancer card, I expect the volunteers would perhaps be... more than usually persuadable shall we say? 😉  If anyone tagged in this thread, or others, are willing to consider being included on the editorial board, by all means mention this in the comments, or send me a pm.

Coin time.  Here is, I believe, the second known example of the following coin (1.99g, 13mm) :

The other appeared in Naumann Auction 51, lot 293 (05.03.2017).  My example confirms the suspected obverse legend, “MAΓNHTΩN” and corrects the reverse legend, which apparently reads “ΠΑΝΔΗΜOC” presumably referring to the people of the city or perhaps to the boule pandemos.  (“Pandemos” means “common to all the people, and is also known as an epithet for Aphrodite [as seen on rare coins of Elis] as well as Zeus [as seen on a few coins of Synnada].)

Attribution to Magnesia ad Sipylos rather than ad Maeandrum is on the strength of the scorpion, which occurs on a number of late 2nd to 3rd century anonymous coins of that city at the same weight; there are also earlier issues countermarked with a scorpion.  (The lyre also appears on the city’s coins, as an attribute of Apollo.)  Normally coins of ad Sipylos have some version of the city name, e.g. “ϹΙΠΥ”, in their legends, so the attribution is highly likely but not 100% certain.

Maybe that snippet could eventually turn into a NumisThought paper?

Edited June 17, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Qcumbor]

Great ideas in this post @Severus Alexander

 I totally agree it will be far better than just copying the featured threads we encounter elswhere 

Q

[Curtisimo]

I’ve always been for indexing the useful information that this group produces and making it accessible in a logical and searchable way.

Hopefully this takes off.  Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

[DonnaML]

A very interesting and ambitious idea. Here's a fundamental question: would this journal have to start from scratch in terms of its contents, or could people's old "work product" from that other place (which still belongs to them, after all!) be repeated here and then re-used?  If not, then years (for some people) of excellent writing would go to waste.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by DonnaML

[Severus Alexander]

Just a note I should have added: anonymous publication, under a pseudonym, would be totally fine of course, for collectors wishing not to spread the word to dumb thieves who think the expensive coins are at home and not in the bank.

2 hours ago, Curtisimo said:

Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

Thank you!!  If the idea takes hold there would definitely be a role for you, if you're willing... in addition to (obviously) being an author, of course!

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

A very interesting and ambitious idea. Here's a fundamental question: would this journal have to start from scratch in terms of its contents, or could people's old "work product" from that other place (which still belongs to them, after all!) be repeated here and then re-used?  If not, then years (for some people) of excellent writing would go to waste.

Since we all own our own content at CT (right?) I don't see why it couldn't be republished in NumisThought, though probably revised.  (Would need a link to the old CT post though.)  That would be a great way to rescue some content from there which is currently subject to the luck-of-the-google-draw problem.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Qcumbor]

5 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

Since we all own our own content at CT (right?) I don't see why it couldn't be republished in NumisThought, though probably revised.  (Would need a link to the old CT post though.)  That would be a great way to rescue some content from there which is currently subject to the luck-of-the-google-draw problem.

And a fabulous start with some very educational content

Q

[kirispupis]

This is a great idea! My biggest worry though is the time commitment from the editors. If things change for one or two of them then the journal may go kaputt. Perhaps it should be more of a community effort?

[Severus Alexander]

6 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

This is a great idea! My biggest worry though is the time commitment from the editors. If things change for one or two of them then the journal may go kaputt. Perhaps it should be more of a community effort?

Thanks!  That's my main concern too.  Absolutely, this should be a community effort... certainly I'm imagining drawing editors for the board from that community.  (Bear in mind that, typically, journal editorial boards have long lists of editors, like 20+.  Some are usually willing to help out a bit in other capacities.)  I do think board members need to have credentials and/or a lot of relevant experience, plus an ability to do and evaluate research.  

It's also possible for the main editor position to be split up a bit, e.g. editorial assistants to help with editing/formatting of articles, others to farm out submissions, etc.  A managing editorial team I guess, which would make the position more robust to turnover.

[Ryro]

What a fun idea...for you all. I look forward to reading all your great articles.

[Phil Davis]

Impressive work Sev Alex! A lot to consider. One thing I keep spinning back to is that some part of what you envision the role of this journal to be is already being performed--admirably, I might add--in print form by Koinon. Notably, providing a venue for worthwhile material from "independent," i.e. non-academic scholars. I wonder if @NickMolinari might be open to some sort of collaboration, where the proposed online-only journal could serve as an incubator that would "graduate" (to hopelessly mangle a metaphor!) a select subset onto chopped-up trees?

Edited June 17, 2022 by Phil Davis

[kirispupis]

42 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

Thanks!  That's my main concern too.  Absolutely, this should be a community effort... certainly I'm imagining drawing editors for the board from that community.  (Bear in mind that, typically, journal editorial boards have long lists of editors, like 20+.  Some are usually willing to help out a bit in other capacities.)  I do think board members need to have credentials and/or a lot of relevant experience, plus an ability to do and evaluate research.  

It's also possible for the main editor position to be split up a bit, e.g. editorial assistants to help with editing/formatting of articles, others to farm out submissions, etc.  A managing editorial team I guess, which would make the position more robust to turnover.

Take for example myself. By no means would I qualify as a board member because I haven't been collecting that long, my academic credentials are in Political Science (though I don't work in the field) and I don't work in numismatics. That being said, I do believe I could provide quality feedback if the paper were from the Hellenistic period around Alexander the Great, since that's my main focus. Would I provide the same level of feedback as an academic? No. But then most of these papers won't be from academics. That's what I mean by "community effort". Everyone who feels they have some understanding of the subject matter should be free to comment.

I guess from the outset we should figure out whether the journal

• Is an academic resource well-respected within educational institutions OR
• A collection of well-meaning articles on numismatics that are useful to the community but fall short of strict academic standards

[Severus Alexander]

10 minutes ago, Ryro said:

What a fun idea...for you all. I look forward to reading all your great articles.

You sell yourself short, buddy!  No reason you couldn't do a serious research article!

Oh.  No, I suppose you meant: why would I do that when I can post funny GIFs instead?  (amiright?) 😄  It's all good here at NumisForums, that's why we like it.

[Curtisimo]

I think some folks are getting the wrong idea on this.  If I understand the premise correctly (and I think I do based on the folks involved) this journal / index would fill a niche not currently being served elsewhere.

Koinon is great, but it targets a different kind of content than what is being proposed here. The articles published in Koinon tend to be deep dives into specific subjects by a specialist(s) (whether degreed academics or self taught experts). It’s awesome and I think it will continue to be a gold standard for numismatic publication.

This proposal would be useful content from the ground up. Entry level explanations all the way up to in-depth articles. When someone buys a coin there is a HUGE benefit to a summary of what the coin is, its context, general info on the city / ruler / kingdom it came from, an overview of why it is interesting or unique etc. etc. etc. To find this information on most coins (especially Greek) you need access to many expensive books and a stomach for sifting through lots and lots of articles hidden behind paywalls. One of the great things about CT was the conversations in the threads that led to a better understanding of a particular coin or coin type.

Here is an example.

Oh cool a coin from Magnesia on the Meander... oh, it was struck by Themistokles? Wait, is that a portrait of Themistokles? Could it be Hephaestus? Who proposed the two theories and what did they say to support them? Oh the sources are in German. I wish someone would compile a summary in English...

I went through all of the stages above researching this coin and it was not easy to wrap my head around it all. It took multiple sources and painstaking translations of the source material... and none of it was original research that could or should be published in the current types of publication available today. An initiative such as @Severus Alexander suggests would index such summaries in a way that other folks could find and benefit from them.

It would be neither a competition among collectors nor a competitor for existing publications. Just a means to make useful information that already exists easier to find and use... not unlike some of the efforts by people like Doug Smith and Valentinian.

[Severus Alexander]

1 hour ago, Phil Davis said:

Impressive work Sev Alex! A lot to consider. One thing I keep spinning back to is that some part of what you envision the role of this journal to be is already being performed--admirably, I might add--in print form by Koinon. Notably, providing a venue for worthwhile material from "independent," i.e. non-academic scholars.

Thanks, @Phil Davis!  You're right that there is some overlap, but you're also right that it's only partial.  Koinon (as one can see from the online sample) is a traditional academic journal in format.  That means, most importantly, 1) extremely limited publication volume (paper!) and long turnaround time; 2) strict rules on style, formatting, and citation; and 3) less risk taking, e.g. it has to exclude more informal styles, jokes, and stories and/or rather minor points of scholarship.  I'm envisioning a rather different (and possibly new?) thing that is much less academic-journal-like and more publication friendly.

That said, I think it's a great idea for there to be some kind of link between NumisThought and Koinon... @Nick?  Definitely the cream-of-the-crop from NumisThought could be considered for print publication.  Maybe there could be links with other numismatic publications too.

@kirispupis asks a related question:

1 hour ago, kirispupis said:

I guess from the outset we should figure out whether the journal

• Is an academic resource well-respected within educational institutions OR
• A collection of well-meaning articles on numismatics that are useful to the community but fall short of strict academic standards

In a way, my proposal is that we aim at both, with a proviso about the second.  Certainly, the resource should be useful to serious academics, even if they don't treat the publication in the same way as a journal coming from Oxford University Press (they shouldn't!)  It can be well respected for what it is, which is something different from a standard journal.

With regard to the second, the pieces need to be well-researched (so meeting "academic standards" in that respect) but not necessarily with all the bells and whistles traditional academic publishing requires (the much less important aspect to academic publishing).  People waste so much time formatting references, for example, when all that really matters is that the reference be locatable.

Also, the volume of posts/articles will hopefully be much higher, meaning that "standards" in a certain sense can be somewhat lower, standards for "importance" for example.

Finally, there's something of a myth about "academic standards."  There are a LOT of shit journals out there (speaking generally, maybe not in numismatics), even excluding the pay-to-publish predatory ones.  This journal will be a lot better quality-wise than a lot of academic journals, just as Koinon is.

1 hour ago, kirispupis said:

Take for example myself. By no means would I qualify as a board member because I haven't been collecting that long, my academic credentials are in Political Science (though I don't work in the field) and I don't work in numismatics. That being said, I do believe I could provide quality feedback if the paper were from the Hellenistic period around Alexander the Great, since that's my main focus. Would I provide the same level of feedback as an academic? No. But then most of these papers won't be from academics. That's what I mean by "community effort".

I think this should be up to the inaugural board.  Personally, given the quality of your research that we've seen already, I think you could easily be on that board as a specialist in that area.  I see from the Koinon editorial board list that it incorporates academics whose major field has nothing to do with numismatics, so there is a precedent!

1 hour ago, kirispupis said:

Everyone who feels they have some understanding of the subject matter should be free to comment.

Absolutely.  Since all articles would start as ordinary NumisForums posts, everyone would be.  I just don't think everyone should qualify to be on the board just because they want to.  But starting from a quality core, the board can be filled in with special-subject experts from all walks of life.  Diversity is a huge asset in this respect.  I don't envision this being a problem, although obviously disagreements may arise as to who should be on the board.  Someone could start out as a subject-matter expert consultant, and perhaps migrate to the board later once they prove their mettle and reliability?

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Severus Alexander]

7 minutes ago, Curtisimo said:

I think some folks are getting the wrong idea on this.  If I understand the premise correctly (and I think I do based on the folks involved) this journal / index would fill a niche not currently being served elsewhere.

Koinon is great, but it targets a different kind of content than what is being proposed here. The articles published in Koinon tend to be deep dives into specific subjects by a specialist(s) (whether degreed academics or self taught experts). It’s awesome and I think it will continue to be a gold standard for numismatic publication.

This proposal would be useful content from the ground up. Entry level explanations all the way up to in-depth articles. When someone buys a coin there is a HUGE benefit to a summary of what the coin is, its context, general info on the city / ruler / kingdom it came from, an overview of why it is interesting or unique etc. etc. etc. To find this information on most coins (especially Greek) you need access to many expensive books and a stomach for sifting through lots and lots of articles hidden behind paywalls. One of the great things about CT was the conversations in the threads that led to a better understanding of a particular coin or coin type.

Here is an example.

Oh cool a coin from Magnesia on the Meander... oh, it was struck by Themistokles? Wait, is that a portrait of Themistokles? Could it be Hephaestus? Who proposed the two theories and what did they say to support them? Oh the sources are in German. I wish someone would compile a summary in English...

I went through all of the stages above researching this coin and it was not easy to wrap my head around it all. It took multiple sources and painstaking translations of the source material... and none of it was original research that could or should be published in the current types of publication available today. An initiative such as @Severus Alexander suggests would index such summaries in a way that other folks could find and benefit from them.

It would be neither a competition among collectors nor a competitor for existing publications. Just a means to make useful information that already exists easier to find and use... not unlike some of the efforts by people like Doug Smith and Valentinian.

Yes, exactly @Curtisimo, and I didn't say enough (or anything!) about this aspect in my reply to @Phil Davis and @kirispupis just now.  This is for the "review" type articles that don't include novel scholarship, which I think should be an important component to the journal.  Of course there are academic review journals out there, and they are often the very best journals.  Currently the numismatic journals don't do much of that kind of thing, though.  Again: it's a product of volume restriction due to print format and the strict bells-and-whistles part of academic standards.

That said, there's no reason a strict academic style article wouldn't find a home in NumisThought as well.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Phil Davis]

27 minutes ago, Curtisimo said:

Koinon is great, but it targets a different kind of content than what is being proposed here. The articles published in Koinon tend to be deep dives into specific subjects by a specialist(s) (whether degreed academics or self taught experts). It’s awesome and I think it will continue to be a gold standard for numismatic publication.

It would be neither a competition among collectors nor a competitor for existing publications. Just a means to make useful information that already exists easier to find and use... not unlike some of the efforts by people like Doug Smith and Valentinian.

One overlap for sure is the suggested section for new coin types, a role Koinon fulfills already. I envision a cutthroat territorial battle red in tooth and claw for possession of each new "loose curl hidden beneath earring" variety! Well, maybe I don't.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Phil Davis

[kirispupis]

25 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

Absolutely.  Since all articles would start as ordinary NumisForums posts, everyone would be. 

 

I'm definitely sold on the idea. However, your comment brings up one thing I was wondering about. Typically, when someone creates one of these posts, besides sharing some introspections on numismatics/history, the poster usually wants to see other coins in the sphere. Even if the poster doesn't request this, others are more than happy to volunteer their relevant coins.

Therefore, two discussions will be happening.

• Attaboys and similar coin posts
• More academic discussion of the material for inclusion in the Journal

This is more of an implementation detail, but it seems like these discussions should be in separate places. Perhaps the original post is copied to another group where this discussion can take place?

There's also the fact that the more hard-hitting questions acceptable for peer review in the journal aren't acceptable in a "hey look at this" post. I once royally pissed someone off by doing this in an act for which I'm still apologizing...

[robinjojo]

Would this journal have a cross index that would allow searches across different subjects, such as empires/kingdoms, coin types, emperors/empresses/kings, mythology, metal types/denominations, etc.?

It is an intriguing and ambitious concept, one that would necessitate a considerable amount of time and cost, but one that is really sorely needed in this vast, complex field of ancient and world numismatics. 

[Severus Alexander]

1 hour ago, Phil Davis said:

One overlap for sure is the suggested section for new coin types, a role Koinon fulfills already. I envision a cutthroat territorial battle red in tooth and claw for possession of each new "loose curl hidden beneath earring" variety! Well, maybe I don't.

😆  Seriously, though, I question whether Koinon can remotely fulfill this need.  Surely their available space is too severely restricted?  I think this kind of thing (something more than a loose curl!) is much more suited for NumisThought – maybe for a "notes" category of article – unless the new type has a very special historical or numismatic importance.  Disabuse me if I'm wrong, I haven't spent enough time with Koinon.

56 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Therefore, two discussions will be happening.

• Attaboys and similar coin posts
• More academic discussion of the material for inclusion in the Journal

This is more of an implementation detail, but it seems like these discussions should be in separate places. Perhaps the original post is copied to another group where this discussion can take place?

So this is the discussion that would take place only under the OP in NumisForums.  I suppose we could consider opening up the article, after publication, to moderated peer-review type comments - might be a good idea.  (Remember the published article is indeed located in a separate NumisThought top-level part of the forum, the journal proper.)  Or if we continue to confine the discussion to the OP, we could specifically invite more hard-hitting peer-review type comments once the paper is published.

What about when it's just a post in NumisForums, though, and maybe the author doesn't even have the journal in mind?  They may not want peer-review and may even take offense.  Good point.  Suggestion: I think there's going to be an etiquette admin post coming down the pipeline, so it might be handled something like this:  normal practice is to pm the poster with something like "Hey, I think your piece might be suited for NumisThought, would it be OK if I added the sort of critical comment they need for that?  It's because I think it's a great post!" to clear the way.

44 minutes ago, robinjojo said:

Would this journal have a cross index that would allow searches across different subjects, such as empires/kingdoms, coin types, emperors/empresses/kings, mythology, metal types/denominations, etc.?

Great idea!! I was envisioning the main index page to be a just a searchable list of authors, titles, and keywords, organized by subject matter, but the sky's the limit, depends on what the editorial staff can manage.  Maybe a searchable google sheets kind of thing, where authors are asked to add index words to their article before publication?  That would be a start.  

Edited June 17, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Restitutor]

Lots to digest here but loving the general idea and agree this would fill a need. Some initial reactions…

• Love the idea of collaborations. Great way to expand the forum organically, and is up next on my list of ways to help the forum grow. On this topic… if anyone has any direct connection to The Coin Show and/or The Ancient Coin Podcast hosts please let me know. Some form of collaboration or even just having the hosts as members & content cross-pollination here would be amazing. Otherwise I’ll reach out directly 🙂 
• There is no legal impediment to anyone copying a post they made on CT, and posting it here as a new thread verbatim (graciously CT spells this out in their TOS). Preferably this is done vs linking to CT directly as key words in posts/comments help bump this forum up in Google results over time, whereas just linking to a post on another forum doesn’t benefit us in that regard.

Looking forward to reading/thinking/discussing more on this topic! 

[Ryro]

23 minutes ago, Restitutor said:

Lots to digest here but loving the general idea and agree this would fill a need. Some initial reactions…

• Love the idea of collaborations. Great way to expand the forum organically, and is up next on my list of ways to help the forum grow. On this topic… if anyone has any direct connection to The Coin Show and/or The Ancient Coin Podcast hosts please let me know. Some form of collaboration or even just having the hosts as members & content cross-pollination here would be amazing. Otherwise I’ll reach out directly 🙂 
• There is no legal impediment to anyone copying a post they made on CT, and posting it here as a new thread verbatim (graciously CT spells this out in their TOS). Preferably this is done vs linking to CT directly as key words in posts/comments help bump this forum up in Google results over time, whereas just linking to a post on another forum doesn’t benefit us in that regard.

Looking forward to reading/thinking/discussing more on this topic! 

So what I'm reading is that soon we'll have Ryro:

Of my old threads maybe made available to the public... depending on public demand😎

And @Severus Alexandermight find 1 or 2 threads O mine "serious"/"featurable" in the content added🤓 "No reason you couldn't do a serious research article!" 

[seth77]

Great idea. I have cointributed (see what I did there?) to Koinon and OMNI and would certainly be willing to help grow this idea in any capacity needed.

[Qcumbor]

On the french forum "les monnaies de l'antiquité" we've made an attempt at something similar about ten years ago, albeit on paper. Many members had sent contributions, either new ones built from scratch, or revised from former posts on the forum.  @Alwin and myself were contributors there. 

Q

[Al Kowsky]

16 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Yesterday, @Qcumbor has a neat suggestion:

Featured Threads were fun, but I think we can do one better!  Q's thread had plenty of good ideas, and some concerns were raised too.  This is my attempt to put all that together and add to it to create something unique to NumisForums that goes far beyond what we had available at CT.  In fact, it could provide a really valuable service to the numismatic community.  No, really.... hear me out!  I do think I've had a bit of a brainwave here... just hoping it's not a brainfart instead! 😄

NumisThought: The NumisForums Journal

As you all know, there is some amazing research work posted here and in other numismatic forums, work that is often hard to find... you just have to stumble upon it through the luck of google.  On CT, I often yearned for this stuff to be collected together and indexed.  @Curtisimo once suggested something along those lines, but for whatever reason it didn't take off.  I thought that was a shame!

Well... let's do it, I say, and do it right!

Here's the basic idea: research-based posts would (with the author's permission) be considered for inclusion in our forum journal NumisThought (? name TBD), which would be published as a separate top level category (same as Numis Forum News and Numis Forums right now).  There would be a general editor and an editorial board, all volunteer of course.  The editorial board, which would include experienced numismatists, academics, and independent scholars (I doubt we'd have a shortage of volunteers) would decide if a post deserved inclusion. 

Using @John Conduitt's educational tag idea, author requests, and member suggestions, we could identify research-based posts that deserve to be included.  There would be at least three types, I imagine, 1) review-type articles summarizing information that's already out there, 2) new idea type articles with original research, and 3) book reviews.  An editor would be assigned to the piece, correspondence with the author would ensue, and the original post would be revised in the light of the ongoing discussion in the post comments plus editorial feedback. The revised article would then be re-posted in the dedicated journal space, with the original forum post & comments linked ("for the original NumisForums post on this topic and ongoing discussion, please see here"), resolving @DonnaML's legit worry about the OP disappearing.  (Probably at least 3 board members should sign off on it before publication.)

With an editorial board of great folks holding decision-making power here, the degree of arbitrariness in what gets included would be kept to a minimum.  As for any journal, they could seek expert advice where appropriate.  We have lots of already-published experts to consult here already, like @curtislclay, @Phil Davis, @Valentinian and others, as well as independent scholars with amazing knowledge, like @Roerbakmix, @seth77, @Nap, @Roman Collector, @Heliodromus, @David Atherton, etc. etc., plus with our own journal we'd certainly gather more.  Time commitment would be very flexible so the list would build pretty easily.

Ways this would be a normal journal

• Articles/posts would have to be well researched, well written, and well cited.  The editors can help clean up the text if necessary.
• Like any open access journal, each post/article would get a volume and issue number plus a publication date, for citation purposes.  Academics and others would get credit for their research.  On occasion, at the editors' discretion, posts/articles could even be sent out for peer-review.  (Perhaps it would eventually be recognized by an official body as an open-access journal at some point in its development.)
• Editorial board members would be officially listed, and so also get verifiable credit for their work.  CV/resumé-appropriate information!
• Articles and topics would be indexed.  There would be a pinned, categorized list of all of them at the top of the journal subforum.

Ways this would NOT be a normal journal

• No academic gatekeeping.  You don't have to be a professor to publish your excellent research here!
• No stuffy style or citation format requirements!  Informal style is totally fine, as long as the post/article is well-written.  Links are great.  Jokes and entertaining stories are all good.  Formal academic style is fine too!  Every piece would have its origin in the regular forum, so there will be lots of variety and that's just as it should be.  What matters is the value of the content and its being presented in digestible form.  Content-wise, if an article is good and useful, it will get cited a lot; others will be cited less.  That's how it's supposed to work!  Quality is ultimately judged by the community.
• No length requirements either.  Everything from small snippets to long reviews would be fair game!  Some publications can simply briefly detail a new coin type.  With a good index, it will be easy to find.
• New relevant research could be added to the article at any time, as an addendum.  (No editing the original version, of course, to keep citations valid.)  Perhaps something new would arise in the forum discussion.  The article would be linked to the original forum post and vice versa.  Some articles may even prove to be totally off-base, e.g. a new coin type isn't really because the coin is a fake, say.  Well, we curb the misinformation by adding that correction to the article and flagging it at the top.
• Sometimes – often! – an author just wants to get an idea out there, never mind all the usual rigamarole involved with normal academic publication.  This would be the perfect venue.
• Low risk of wasted time on file drawer papers: write your OP and if it seems to be a candidate to get into the journal in some form, all well and good.  But the post lasts forever in the normal forum either way!  And the time to publication can be highly variable, no problem... some will get it in right away, others may want to take a few months on revisions.

What level of quality would be required for publication?

Obviously the board try to will start with an agreed-upon general standard of quality required (maybe using some already-existing posts here and elsewhere for reference?), but that standard may evolve as the journal progresses.  The standard would certainly start at a level rather higher than the lowest quality posts we sometimes saw in Featured Threads at CT, however.

OK... but what about that general editor?

This is obviously the position that would have the greatest time commitment.  But as for authors and editorial board, the person taking it on would be able to list the position on their CV/resumé so it would not be totally thankless.  And if/when the journal grows, credit & the position's value would increase proportionally along with that increased time commitment.

Since I am largely off work at the moment due to my cancer, I'm willing to serve as the inaugural editor-pro-tem if necessary, to get things set up and running smoothly.  I would really enjoy it.  Plus since I can play the cancer card, I expect the volunteers would perhaps be... more than usually persuadable shall we say? 😉  If anyone tagged in this thread, or others, are willing to consider being included on the editorial board, by all means mention this in the comments, or send me a pm.

Coin time.  Here is, I believe, the second known example of the following coin (1.99g, 13mm) :

The other appeared in Naumann Auction 51, lot 293 (05.03.2017).  My example confirms the suspected obverse legend, “MAΓNHTΩN” and corrects the reverse legend, which apparently reads “ΠΑΝΔΗΜOC” presumably referring to the people of the city or perhaps to the boule pandemos.  (“Pandemos” means “common to all the people, and is also known as an epithet for Aphrodite [as seen on rare coins of Elis] as well as Zeus [as seen on a few coins of Synnada].)

Attribution to Magnesia ad Sipylos rather than ad Maeandrum is on the strength of the scorpion, which occurs on a number of late 2nd to 3rd century anonymous coins of that city at the same weight; there are also earlier issues countermarked with a scorpion.  (The lyre also appears on the city’s coins, as an attribute of Apollo.)  Normally coins of ad Sipylos have some version of the city name, e.g. “ϹΙΠΥ”, in their legends, so the attribution is highly likely but not 100% certain.

Maybe that snippet could eventually turn into a NumisThought paper?

S.A. I think this is a great idea 😊. As Curtisimo pointed out, your idea is similar to KOINON at Academia by Nicholas Molinari. If your project doesn't have the scholarly demands necessary to submit papers to Academia, I think it could be successful & attract more members to this forum 😉.

[FitzNigel]

I am all I’m favor of this.  I think the crossover with Koinon can also easily be avoided, as members who want to publish in the print journal should simply submit their work there first.  I did that for Koinon I, and after it was out for over a year I then posted my work on CT (with some updates and editions).

Is my understanding correct that the ‘NumisThoughts’ forum would be curated by the board, containing locked threads, but discussion would be encouraged on the original thread (via a link)?  Or did I get that wrong?

I’m also glad to see the encouragement of moving past CT threads over to here.  I had a nice system where I linked my collection threads to my profile, but I would rather all that stuff be in one place rather than spread throughout the internet…